COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT Accompanying the document Proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL on the protection of animals during transport and related operations, amending Council Regulation (EC) No 1255/97 and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2005
Date: 2023-12-07
Institutions: Directorate-General for Health and Food Safety, European Commission
Subjects: animal welfare, economic activity, international transport, intra-EU transport, protection of animals, transport of animals, veterinary inspection

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 7.12.2023  SWD(2023) 402 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT  EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT    Accompanying the document Proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL on the protection of animals during transport and related operations, amending Council Regulation (EC) No 1255/97 and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2005 {COM(2023) 770 final} - {SEC(2023) 397 final} - {SWD(2023) 399 final} - {SWD(2023) 401 final}  
 
 
Impact assessment for the Revision of the EU Animal Welfare Legislation 

Executive Summary Sheet 

Why? What is the problem being addressed? 

A. Need for action 

Since  the  adoption  of  the  current  EU  animal  welfare  legislation  (mainly  in  the  1990’s),  science  has 
evolved,  EU  citizens  pay  increasing  attention  to  animal  welfare  and  consumers’  behaviours  and 
awareness  of the issue have changed.  For these reasons,  a  revision of the current  EU animal welfare 
legislation  is  included  among  the  actions  under  the  Farm  to  Fork  Strategy,  to  contribute  to  a  more 
sustainable food production system in the EU. 

As confirmed by an extensive evaluation (“Fitness Check “), these developments are not fully taken into 
account in the legislation today. The main problems to be addressed in the revision of the legislation on 
the protection of animals during transport are the following: 

-  Animal welfare during transport is compromised by certain transport conditions, as well as of 

a lack of modern and effective tools for enforcement. 

-  An  uneven  level  playing  field  for  EU  business  operators  on  the  single  market,  caused  by 
differences in implementation and enforcement of the common EU requirements as well as by 
differing legislation adopted at national level for the protection of animals during transport. 

 What is this initiative expected to achieve? 

Bringing  the  EU  legislation  closer  to  the  latest  scientific  evidence, and  to  citizens’  expectations,  will 
significantly improve the welfare of the  over a billion of animals that are transported within and between 
Member States, and exported to non-EU countries every year. Clearer and updated provisions, taking 
account of the latest scientific evidence, and a greater use of modern technology, will make the revised 
legislation  easier  for  business  operators  to  comply  with,  and  for  competent  authorities  to  enforce.  In 
addition, the initiative will help to reduce distortions on the Single Market linked to the conditions of 
transport  of  live  animals  for  economic  purposes.  Ultimately,  the  initiative  will  contribute  to  a  more 
resilient, sustainable food production system in the EU. 

What is the value added of action at the EU level? 
The cross-border nature of animal transport requires regulation at EU level. Actions only at national level 
would  result  in  Member  States  having  their  own,  differing  legislation  which  would  lead  to  further 
fragmentation, distortions of competition and unequal level of animal welfare across the EU. By adopting 
an updated and more homogenous set of rules, the intra-EU trade of animals would be facilitated and 
would take place in  a  situation of  better level  playing  field  among  EU operators. Hence, the internal 
market would be improved, and the EU high values on animal welfare would be easier promoted at global 
level.  

What legislative and non-legislative policy options have been considered? Is there a preferred choice 
or not? Why? 

B. Solutions 

1 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
To address the problems described above, six measures have been identified. For some of these measures, 
alternative  policy  options  have  been  considered.  Based  on  a  multi-criteria  analysis  of  their  animal 
welfare, economic, social and environmental impacts, the following combination of preferred choices 
have been established (with certain transition periods when relevant): 

1)  Further limit the maximum journey times for the transport of live animals (9 hours maximum for 
animals transported for slaughter; and for other animals: 21 hours (+ 24 hours rest) + 21 hours 
journey). 

2)  Increase space allowance in the vehicle based on EFSA recommendations. 
3)  Apply  the  maximum  journey  times  also  for  exports  of  live  animals  from  the  EU  and  require 
further tools to guarantee that EU rules are met until destination, in line with the European Court 
of Justice ruling (e.g. animal welfare officer on board of vessels, vessels to fulfil good standards 
of maritime safety).  

4)  Increase animal welfare requirements for the transport of vulnerable animals (e.g. for unweaned 
calves: max journey time of 9 hours + 1 hour feeding + 9 hours, if an effective feeding system is 
approved; Minimum age of five weeks and minimum weight 50 kg for unweaned calves to be 
transported). 

5)  Revise rules to limit animal suffering due to transport at high temperatures (if weather forecast 
indicates 25°-30°C, only short journeys allowed during daytime;  if it is higher than 30°C, only 
transport at night).   

6)  Make the maximum of digital tools to facilitate the enforcement of transport rules (e.g. real-time 

positioning of vehicles; central database and digital application).  

7)  Introduce  specific  rules  for  the  transport  of  cats  and  dogs  (e.g.  age  limits  and  temperature 

conditions). 

Who supports which option? 
As illustrated by the diverging stakeholders’ views expressed, animal welfare is an area of polarisation, 
where NGOs and industry seldomly share the same perspectives, although they agree to the objective of 
improving animal welfare and reducing internal market distortion. Industry stakeholders generally agree 
on  improvement  of  the  transport  conditions  (temperature,  space  allowance,  enhanced  conditions  for 
export, in particular by sea transport), but are reluctant to further limit journey times, in particular when 
it comes to exports of live animals from the EU. However, industry is internally divided due to diverging 
national legislation of EU Member States leading to diverging industry interests. On the other side, NGOs 
do not support the option to continue exporting live animals under strict conditions, and would prefer a 
ban  on  live  animals’  export.  Similarly,  they  are  in  favour  of  much  stricter  maximum  journey  times 
(maximum 8h for all animals).   

C. Impacts of the preferred option 

What are the benefits of the preferred option (if any, otherwise main ones)? 
The preferred option is expected to bring considerable animal welfare benefits. In addition, it will have 
a  positive  impact  on  transporters  and  other  EU  business  operators:  with  more  harmonised  rules  than 
today, they will profit from a more level playing field on the Single Market. Furthermore, better welfare 
conditions  during  transport  will  lower  the  animal  health  risks,  reduce  mortality  rates  as  well  as  the 
percentage  of  animals  arriving  sick  or  injured  at  arrival,  thus  reducing  carcass  rejection  at 
slaughterhouses  (avoiding  the  costs  of  destroying  carcasses,  estimated  to  EUR  27  per  carcass)  and 
improving meat quality, as well as bringing economic gains for producers, for instance through reduced 
veterinary costs.   

The  initiative  will  also  bring  indirect  societal  benefits,  e.g.  by  contributing  to  reduce  the  risk  for 
antimicrobial  resistance  and  the  spread  of  zoonotic  diseases,  and  by  better  responding  to  citizens’ 
expectations on animal welfare.  

2 

 
 
 
 
 
 
What are the costs of the preferred option (if any, otherwise main ones)? 
Transport companies will have to adapt to new transport patterns and potentially buy additional trucks 
due to higher space allowance. In the case of sea transport, some will need to buy new or renovate their 
vessels in order to ensure compliance with standards of maritime safety.  

In average at EU level, the cumulative impact of the preferred option is estimated to result in an increase 
of production costs of EUR 0.014 per kilo of meat, milk or eggs per year. The impacts that this would 
have on production levels, import, export and consumer prices are expected to be negligible (below 1% 
in most cases), and no significant impact is expected on food security either.  

As  regards  food  affordability,  the  impacts  on  consumer  prices  are,  depending  on  the  commodity, 
expected to represent an additional expenditure ranging from EUR 2.81 to EUR 14.09 per person per 
year, depending on diet and income. 

Some  existing  costs  will  be  reduced  by  the  savings  incurred  by  less  administrative  burden  due  to 
digitalisation. Those savings have been estimated to EUR 71 million per year.  

How will businesses, SMEs and micro-enterprises be affected? 

Practically all EU businesses involved in animal transports are SMEs according to the usual definition 
of SMEs (more than 250 employees). Overall, the economic impacts  are  limited, thus addressing the 
needs  of  SMEs.  In  addition,  sufficiently  long  transition  periods  are  foreseen  to  facilitate  a  smooth 
adaptation. Also, gains and savings will be obtained thanks to higher meat quality, less carcass rejection 
and lower use of veterinary medicines.  

Will there be significant impacts on national budgets and administrations? 
No significant impact. 

Will there be other significant impacts? 
No. 

D. Follow up 

When will the initiative be reviewed? 
A  general  evaluation  will  be  performed  10  years  after  the  entering  into  force.  For  this  purpose,  an 
implementation  and  evaluation  report  will  be  prepared  by  the  Commission,  taking  into  account  data 
collected based on the revised Regulation as well as data from TRACES and Member States’ annual 
reports on official controls performed.  

3